Machindra Hanumant shindeversusSheetal Machlndra Shinde

                                                                      33-REVN-291-2025 (CR).doc

            Tikam

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 2025
VAISHALI
ANIL
TIKAM              Machindra Hanumant Shinde                     ...Applicant/s
                   VERSUS
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
                   Sheetal Machlndra Shinde and Ors.             ...Respondent/s
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.10.06
17:43:14 +0530     _________________________________________________________________
                   Mr. Akshay Deshmukh i/by Ms. Sonali Patil , for the Applicant.
                   Ms. Rajashri Somvanshi for Respondent No.1
                   Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
                   _________________________________________________________________

                                                       CORAM      :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                       DATE       :   1st OCTOBER 2026.
                   P.C. :

                   1.         Heard learned counsel for the Applicant,learned counsel for

                   Respondents and learned APP.

                   2.         The challenge in this revision application is to the order of

                   maintenance dated 07/05/2025 passed by the Learned Family Court No.2,

                   Pune.

                   3.         It is contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

                   Learned Family Judge has directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to

                   Respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

                   towards the maintenance from the date of order. Learned counsel further

                   submitted that the Petitioner has not filed his assets and liabilities. The

                   Learned Judge has passed the order on the basis of assumed income

                   without considering the actual income of the Petitioner. Learned counsel

                                                   Page 1 of 3
                                                         33-REVN-291-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

    for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will file affidavit of assets and

    liabilities. The matter be remanded back by giving an opportunity to put

    his case and requested to allow the Petition.

    4.         It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that

    Respondent No.1 has no source of income. Petitioner earns lakhs of rupees

    from his business. Respondent No.1 is taking care of two minor children

    (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). The Learned Judge has passed well reasoned

    order. No interference is required in it        and requested to reject the

    application.

    5.         I have heard both learned counsel. While passing the order, the

    Learned Judge has observed that the Petitioner is having 8 workmen and

    his own tempo. He must be paying Rs.1,50,000/- towards salary to the

    workmen and his gross income must be around Rs.3,00,000/-. The Income

    tax Return produced by businessman cannot be taken as gospel truth. On

    that ground, the Learned Judge has passed the impugned order. In my

    view, the impugned order was passed on the basis of assumed income.

    The Petitioner is ready to file affidavit of assets and liabilities before the

    Family Court. Considering this fact, I find it fit case to remand back the

    matter for fresh hearing and I pass following order:

                                        ORDER

    (i)        Revision Application is partly allowed.



                                      Page 2 of 3
                                                       33-REVN-291-2025 (CR).doc

Tikam

    (ii)    The order dated 07/05/2025 passed by the Learned Family

            Court at Pune granting maintenance to the Respondents is

            quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back for fresh

            hearing of maintenance application.

    (iii)   Both parties shall file fresh affidavits of assets and liabilities.

    (iv)    Learned Family Court shall decide the quantum of maintenance

            afresh, considering the evidence on record and without

            influenced of order of this Court.

    (v)     Till the decision of the maintenance application, the Petitioner

            shall pay the maintenance as granted by the Learned Family

            Court.

            Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.



                                                 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                   Page 3 of 3